snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > Urban Legends > Religion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 05 August 2007, 08:46 PM
Little Pink Pill's Avatar
Little Pink Pill Little Pink Pill is offline
 
Join Date: 03 September 2005
Location: California
Posts: 7,053
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Slick View Post
If you can't see why calling non-believers "parasites" and thinking that it's okay to murder their children so that future generations of other people (obviously not the people of Jericho because there are none of those anymore) will know your deity of choice is incredibly evil and nasty, I can't help you see my side of things. Sorry.
First of all, I did not call non-believers "parasites." If I have you mixed up with someone else, correct and forgive me, but I believe I have seen other posters ask you not to use quotes in such a way that it implies they used that term originally. Please add me to that list.

I also did not say that it is Ok to murder the children of non-believers. In fact, I very much agree with you that there would be something seriously wrong with someone who did not find those verses deeply disturbing.

Your use of the term "non-believers" suggests we are talking about non-Christians. That is not the case. We are discussing a specific war (Israel versus the Amorites) in a specific period of time. You made statements about God committing infanticide in those passages simply so He could clear some land. But while the Old Testament contains some pretty unsettling theology, it never teaches that.

But like I said, what is does teach is upsetting enough. You used the word "omnibenevolent" but I agree that is not what the OT is getting at. The biblical God clearly is adverse to certain things, but He doesn't just wipe out people willy-nilly, even in the most violent and graphic parts of the OT. There are several people groups that Israel befriends and aids, and there is a verse that says something about God not allowing Israel to proceed until the sin of the Amorites had grown to a certain degree of heinousness.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Johnny Slick View Post
dola,

Abraham and that one Israeli general dude would have to disagree with you about YHWH abhorring child sacrifices.
Abraham was specifically told not to go through with it, and the Israelite general guy was never commanded to make that stupid vow. In addition, because his daughter went into the wilderness to "mourn her virginity" rather than her life, most scholars believe she was not killed, but given to a vow of chastity.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 06 August 2007, 04:24 AM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,580
Default

Quote:
The constitution, in Articles 103-106, provides that matters concerning the personal status of Muslims are the exclusive jurisdiction of Shari'a courts, which apply Shari'a law in their proceedings. Personal status includes religion, marriage, divorce, child custody and inheritance.
They are making a very farfetched interpretation here. It's like saying that western law is Christian because we don't allow polygamy. As I said, the roots may be in religion, but it's not that way now in practice.

Just read a couple of issues of Jordan Times (jordantimes.com) and you'll see that the modern Jordanian legal system is very modern.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 06 August 2007, 10:15 AM
pinqy pinqy is offline
 
Join Date: 20 February 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 11,647
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
They are making a very farfetched interpretation here. It's like saying that western law is Christian because we don't allow polygamy. As I said, the roots may be in religion, but it's not that way now in practice.
Here is the relevant portion from The Constitution of Jordan:
Quote:
Article 103 i) The Civil Courts shall exercise their jurisdiction in respect of civil and criminal matters in accordance with the law for the time being in force in the Kingdom, provided that in matters affecting the personal status of foreigners or in matters of a civil or commercial nature which in accordance with international usage are governed by the law of another country, such law shall be applied in the manner designated by the law.

(ii) Matters of personal status are those which are defined by law and in accordance therewith fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Sharia Courts where the parties are Moslems.

* As amended in the Official Gazette No. 1380 of 4/5/1958.

** As Amended in the Official Gazette No. 1396 1/9/1958.

Article 104 The Religious Courts shall be divided into:

(i) The Sharia Courts

(ii) The Tribunals of other Religious Communities

Article 105 The Sharia Courts shall in accordance with their own laws have exclusive jurisdiction in respect of the following matters:

(i) Matters of personal status of Moslems.

(ii) Cases concerning blood money (Diya) where the two parties are Moslems or where one of the parties is not a Moslem and the two parties consent to the jurisdiction of the Sharia Courts.

(iii) Matters pertaining to Islamic Waqfs.

Article 106 The Sharia Courts shall in the exercise of their jurisdiction apply the provisions of the Sharia law.
That's pretty straightforward. No "based on." Perhaps you weren't aware that there were seperate Sharia courts in addition to the civil courts? Or are you claiming that the religious courts don't actually exist?

Oh, and the Sharia courts ruled a man guilty of apostasy back in Jan 2006. It's mentioned in the State Eepartment link. The case had not been resolved by Sept 2006.
pinqy
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 06 August 2007, 03:52 PM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,580
Default

Quote:
That's pretty straightforward. No "based on." Perhaps you weren't aware that there were seperate Sharia courts in addition to the civil courts? Or are you claiming that the religious courts don't actually exist?
Frankly, I see a huge gap between the texts you present and how the law is actually practiced, and I have no real explanation. My best guess is that it's obsolete laws (look at the dates) which are since superceded, even if technically still in effect. Most legal systems have that kind of old gunk lying around, for instance up to a few decades ago, moving a property line marker was a capital crime in Sweden even though capital punishment had been abolished for a long time, and playing cards with your children (even if there were no money at stake) could formally put you in prison. These two examples have since been cleaned up, but many other remains.

Another explanation may be that the power of the religious courts have been taken away. I know there is a strong movement towards weakening old laws that are not modern, and at several occasions big steps has been taken in this direction, sometimes under the guise of other reforms. A typical example of how such a change can be done is to gradually reduce and eventually remove the religious courts' right to actually assign a punishment, reassigning those powers to the secular legal system, eventually giving the religious courts a status more like assigning penance in the Christian sects.

It's interesting to see that other religions get the same rights, though (104, article ii).
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 06 August 2007, 05:07 PM
cobra4j
 
Posts: n/a
Default what's the truth?

I don't know too much about Islam- but from what I know I doubt bestiality would be accepted under any circumstances. This "Little Green Book" may exist, but we have to consider it may be a phony/forgery.

When it comes to children/pedophilia- I do believe such behavior is not exactly accepted. But, as we've seen in earlier posting- marrying someone 11 or 12 is "normal" for them- Whether this would technically be considered pedophilia by most psycologists I am not certain.

From what I have read, Muhammed did marry a six year old- but the two of them did not engage in sex until she was more like 12 or 14.

I do recall stories of American women, and others, who got stuck in Moslem countries and their father-in-law, or some other man in the family, tried to molest her daughters, and no one did anything about it. Since women have so little power in such countries, and since children are little more than property to their fathers, you can make pedophilia a crime all you want, but it's probably less effective than trying to outlaw moonshine in America.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 07 August 2007, 01:19 AM
King_Crimson King_Crimson is offline
 
Join Date: 13 March 2006
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra4j View Post
I don't know too much about Islam- but from what I know I doubt bestiality would be accepted under any circumstances. This "Little Green Book" may exist, but we have to consider it may be a phony/forgery.
You can read it in my post here:
http://message.snopes.com/showpost.p...1&postcount=10

Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra4j View Post
When it comes to children/pedophilia- I do believe such behavior is not exactly accepted. But, as we've seen in earlier posting- marrying someone 11 or 12 is "normal" for them- Whether this would technically be considered pedophilia by most psycologists I am not certain.
By Muslims? Of course its accepted! I have shown previously in this thread that their "Exact words of God" condone it, and their "best example to follow" did it (thus okay for them to do it too). In order for them 'not exactly accept it" they have to make the judgement call that their God and Prophet are wrong!


Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra4j View Post
From what I have read, Muhammed did marry a six year old- but the two of them did not engage in sex until she was more like 12 or 14.
Sorry? You must have missed my post here:
http://message.snopes.com/showpost.p...7&postcount=13

Please make sure to read the quoted ahadith. Let me know if you want more......they all say the same thing. Muhammad consummated the marriage with her when she was 9 years old. She was pre-pubescent at the time.

You may believe as you wish, but you do not have the backing of the evidence.


Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra4j View Post
I do recall stories of American women, and others, who got stuck in Moslem countries and their father-in-law, or some other man in the family, tried to molest her daughters, and no one did anything about it. Since women have so little power in such countries, and since children are little more than property to their fathers, you can make pedophilia a crime all you want, but it's probably less effective than trying to outlaw moonshine in America.
Oh yes! Lets legalise it...it happens anyway, right?


-KC
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 07 August 2007, 02:22 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,525
D'oh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by King_Crimson View Post
How does reposting an online ad for the book address the suggestion that the book is a "forgery" (or otherwise does not correctly represent the views of Khomeini)? The English "translation" was published in 1980. That ought to be a big flashing warning sign right there. I mean, it's not as if anyone would have been pissed off at him enough to misrepresent his views in 1980, is it?
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 07 August 2007, 03:03 AM
pinqy pinqy is offline
 
Join Date: 20 February 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 11,647
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
Frankly, I see a huge gap between the texts you present and how the law is actually practiced, and I have no real explanation.
What, exactly, is the gap? You previously denied the Sharia courts existed (when you said that Jordan didn't have Sharia) so how could you know how the sharia courts operated? The Sharia courts are limited to certain spheres so it's perfectly possible you just never heard of anything before the Sharia courts because nothing either came up or caught your attention. How many cases of religion, marriage, divorce, child custody inheritance (personal status of Moslems) or blood money (of at least one Moslem) or a matter pertaining to an Islamic Waqf did you encounter? And how were they handled?



Quote:
My best guess is that it's obsolete laws (look at the dates) which are since superceded, even if technically still in effect.
You can't supercede a constitution...that's that's the whole point of a constitution. A constitution can be ammended, but no other law can supercede it.


Quote:
Most legal systems have that kind of old gunk lying around, for instance up to a few decades ago, moving a property line marker was a capital crime in Sweden even though capital punishment had been abolished for a long time, and playing cards with your children (even if there were no money at stake) could formally put you in prison. These two examples have since been cleaned up, but many other remains.
But not in the constitution.

Quote:
Another explanation may be that the power of the religious courts have been taken away.
That would mean an ammendment to the constitution. Which hasn't occurred. And since the courts have ruled on apostasy as recently as last year, the power was clearly still there during your residence.

See I'm faced with two possibilities here...either the State Department, with no discernible motive, simply invented the cases of apostasy and is falsely stating that sharia courts still exist and the constitution has either been secretly ammended or blatenly violated OR you just didn't have a full picture of the Jordanian legal system. Guess which one I think is more likely.

pinqy
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 07 August 2007, 04:07 AM
King_Crimson King_Crimson is offline
 
Join Date: 13 March 2006
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
How does reposting an online ad for the book address the suggestion that the book is a "forgery" (or otherwise does not correctly represent the views of Khomeini)? The English "translation" was published in 1980. That ought to be a big flashing warning sign right there. I mean, it's not as if anyone would have been pissed off at him enough to misrepresent his views in 1980, is it?
What are you talking about? Its not an online advertisment for the book! If you went to the link you would notice the book chapters on the right hand side of the page indicating that you can read it in its english translated entirety.

My point in providing it was to show that such claims as "Khomeni's little green book" says that Bestiality is okay" are absolutely false!

Nowhere in the book does it say that; thus proving that any information that claims Khomeni's LGB says these things is false!

Please reacquaint yourself with the OP of this thread:

http://message.snopes.com/showpost.p...61&postcount=1

Specifically this part:

Quote:
I've been reading quotes posted from what is purportedly the book below as well as something called the "Little Green Book". The quotes have Khomeini saying that beastiality and sex with babies is permitted.
Thanks

-KC

ETA: If you are thinking that LGB is not written by Khomeni, then you do not know much about the man or about Islam. Thanks
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 07 August 2007, 04:15 AM
ganzfeld's Avatar
ganzfeld ganzfeld is offline
 
Join Date: 05 September 2005
Location: Kyoto, Japan
Posts: 23,525
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by King_Crimson View Post
What are you talking about? Its not an online advertisment for the book! If you went to the link you would notice the book chapters on the right hand side of the page indicating that you can read it in its english translated entirety.

My point in providing it was to show that such claims as "Khomeni's little green book" says that Bestiality is okay" are absolutely false!

Nowhere in the book does it say that; thus proving that any information that claims Khomeni's LGB says these things is false!
Sorry. I was wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 07 August 2007, 04:17 AM
King_Crimson King_Crimson is offline
 
Join Date: 13 March 2006
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganzfeld View Post
Sorry. I was wrong.
No worries! I just read my previous post over and I came across a bit rude about it (late night). My apologies if I offended you.

Thanks

-KC
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 07 August 2007, 12:34 PM
cobra4j
 
Posts: n/a
Default for emphasis

Oh yes! Lets legalise it...it happens anyway, right?


-KC[/QUOTE]


(Sorry- I came into this discussion late- did not have time to read all your posting.)

No- I am not saying lets legalize pedophilia because some Moslems do it. My point was, from what I do know about Moslems, having sex with a child is technically (please note the word technically) not permitted. Christians, Jews, and others also do not approve of such behavior- but in America, and other countries, since women have power to protect their children, and since men are no longer seen as "owners" of their families, pedophilia is a crime, it is looked for, caught and dealt with.

My point was, trying to outlaw pedophilia in a country like Iran is almost pointless because as long as "Allah" allows men to be "owners" instead of husbands and fathers, this type of behavior will continue. I hope you don't feel I am undermining your overall point on this matter - I am trying to build on it. If you are trying to say there is something terrible about a religion that allows men to have sex with children, I do not disagree. No matter how you slice it- marrying and having sex with a pre-pubescent girl should be counted as illegal and immoral by everyone.

I have been taught for many years to be "open minded" and "not judge" and don't be "paranoid" or a "fear monger" - but sometimes when you tell the truth you get labeled. I have been saying for years America and Europe need to open their eyes and take a good look at Islam- because it is coming, it is growing, it is here. If homosexuals and women think they have it bad now, they should really think about what their lives will be like if Islam takes over Europe and America - and apparently several other groups need to take this seriously.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 07 August 2007, 02:58 PM
King_Crimson King_Crimson is offline
 
Join Date: 13 March 2006
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cobra4j View Post


(Sorry- I came into this discussion late- did not have time to read all your posting.)

No- I am not saying lets legalize pedophilia because some Moslems do it. My point was, from what I do know about Moslems, having sex with a child is technically (please note the word technically) not permitted. Christians, Jews, and others also do not approve of such behavior- but in America, and other countries, since women have power to protect their children, and since men are no longer seen as "owners" of their families, pedophilia is a crime, it is looked for, caught and dealt with.

My point was, trying to outlaw pedophilia in a country like Iran is almost pointless because as long as "Allah" allows men to be "owners" instead of husbands and fathers, this type of behavior will continue. I hope you don't feel I am undermining your overall point on this matter - I am trying to build on it. If you are trying to say there is something terrible about a religion that allows men to have sex with children, I do not disagree. No matter how you slice it- marrying and having sex with a pre-pubescent girl should be counted as illegal and immoral by everyone.

I have been taught for many years to be "open minded" and "not judge" and don't be "paranoid" or a "fear monger" - but sometimes when you tell the truth you get labeled. I have been saying for years America and Europe need to open their eyes and take a good look at Islam- because it is coming, it is growing, it is here. If homosexuals and women think they have it bad now, they should really think about what their lives will be like if Islam takes over Europe and America - and apparently several other groups need to take this seriously.
cobra! I have completely misunderstood your point previously! You have hit the nail on the head here! I agree with you 100%! Thank you for taking the time to clarify. My apologies for my "short" post to you.

Keep up the great posts!

-KC
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 07 August 2007, 05:19 PM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,580
Default

Quote:
What, exactly, is the gap? You previously denied the Sharia courts existed (when you said that Jordan didn't have Sharia) so how could you know how the sharia courts operated? The Sharia courts are limited to certain spheres so it's perfectly possible you just never heard of anything before the Sharia courts because nothing either came up or caught your attention. How many cases of religion, marriage, divorce, child custody inheritance (personal status of Moslems) or blood money (of at least one Moslem) or a matter pertaining to an Islamic Waqf did you encounter? And how were they handled?
Well, if they had a position of power, I would know. I lived and worked (with Jordanians, not in one of those projects where you only see the people who came with you for the project) there for a year, including some cooperation with the police. I talked a lot about Jordan, including legal system, especially concerning differences compared to Sweden, with both Moslems and Christians, native Jordanians, Palestinians and Armenians, and I read Jordan Times almost every day. Add to that that I have an interest in legal matters (just a hobby, I'm not in trouble). I'm a pretty sharp observer, I would have noticed.

As I said, it just don't fit at all with my experience of the nation. I feel a bit like trying to explain snow to someone from a country where it never snows and to whom the thought of solid water is ridiculous. I've seen solid water, and I've seen Jordan up close and personal, and as far as I can see, the legal system is more or less of a western style.

Quote:
You can't supercede a constitution...that's that's the whole point of a constitution. A constitution can be ammended, but no other law can supercede it.
That depends on the legal system. It was done in Sweden when the succession order was changed to allow the oldest child of the previous regend to become regent, even if that child was female and there was a male sibling.

It can also be reevaluated. Look at how gun control is being reevaluated in USA, constantly restricting the types of weapons which can be owned. The text has not changed, yet something has definately changed.

Quote:
But not in the constitution.
Even in the constitution, although I don't think Sweden has it (we only have three and a half laws in the constitution (regeringsformen (how the nation is ruled), yttrandefrihetsförordningen (freedom of speech), tryckfrihetsförordningen (freedom of the press) and successionsordningen (the traditional system of deciding who rules based on who had sex with whom)), the rest is handled by ordinary laws. Not much can go wrong in three and a half law, although freedom of speech and press are hopelessly outdated as far as modern technology goes. Example: A fax sent from a paper fax has much stronger protection than a fax with the same contents sent from a fax modem in a computer.

Quote:
That would mean an ammendment to the constitution. Which hasn't occurred.
See my example about gun control above.

Quote:
And since the courts have ruled on apostasy as recently as last year, the power was clearly still there during your residence.
And why was the case unresolved?

"Eleker and his pastor postponed the date of this appearance until the end of July, having heard rumors of an upcoming change in the apostasy law which might help his case. The case was still pending at the end of the reporting period."

Also note that most of the punishment discussed for him was purely religious punishments, not very different from the "shunning" that is precticed by some Christians. To me, that's not much different from being kicked from a group (religious, political or otherwise) for not adhering to the rules of the group.
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 08 August 2007, 11:26 PM
King_Crimson King_Crimson is offline
 
Join Date: 13 March 2006
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 82
Default

Hi Troberg,

Can you please clarify your point? Are you saying that Shariah is NOT practiced, or are you simply making the point that Shariah is not official law in many muslim countries?

I can provide examples of Shariah operating in many countries and areas, as either an addendum/alternative to the law of the country (that don't impose full shariat); I can also show how many regions are practicing shariah instead of the law of the country.


My point is that Shariah allows the things I have presented, and Shariah is indeed alive and well all over the world.


Perhaps you would be surprised that there are allegations that Muslims are instituting Shariah in Britain at this time?

http://www.dewsburyreporter.co.uk/Vi...icleid=2852441


So its not a case of (percieved) "backwards" countries doing it, nor is it a thing from "days gone by". Fact is it is Muslims who want Shariat, and Muslims who are implementing/practicing it.

Thanks

-KC
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 09 August 2007, 04:10 PM
Troberg Troberg is offline
 
 
Join Date: 04 November 2005
Location: Borlänge, Sweden
Posts: 11,580
Default

Quote:
Can you please clarify your point? Are you saying that Shariah is NOT practiced, or are you simply making the point that Shariah is not official law in many muslim countries?
Well, it is definately not the main legal power in most Moslem countries. In most cases, it's secondary to secular law.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much against religious laws, but I'm also adamant about personal rights to decide which rules to live under within the secular legal framework. The Amish is a good example under the Christian tradition. I just think that one has to do more than just a cursory glance at the existence of religious courts and look at how the system actually works. Any legal system is a mess of laws, often contradictory, and a lot hinges on how these are balanced against each other. The existance of a law does not necessarily mean that it's strongly enforced or even actively enforced. It's not just black or white, there is a huge grey area which needs to be examined closely.

Quote:
Perhaps you would be surprised that there are allegations that Muslims are instituting Shariah in Britain at this time?
As long as it don't conflict with British law, I see no problem with that. Organizations (religious or otherwise) are fully within their rights to assign rules for their members as long as these rules does not conflict with the legal system. For instance, snopes can decide that a certain user will be banned for breaking the rules of this site.

As far as I could see from that article, they have no intentions of competing with the British legal system for power, in fact, they are clearly stating that matters which belong in the ordinary legal system will be left to be handled there.
Reply With Quote
  #57  
Old 09 August 2007, 09:11 PM
King_Crimson King_Crimson is offline
 
Join Date: 13 March 2006
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 82
Default

Hello Troberg! Thank you for taking the time to reply.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
Well, it is definately not the main legal power in most Moslem countries. In most cases, it's secondary to secular law.

Don't get me wrong, I'm very much against religious laws, but I'm also adamant about personal rights to decide which rules to live under within the secular legal framework. The Amish is a good example under the Christian tradition. I just think that one has to do more than just a cursory glance at the existence of religious courts and look at how the system actually works. Any legal system is a mess of laws, often contradictory, and a lot hinges on how these are balanced against each other. The existance of a law does not necessarily mean that it's strongly enforced or even actively enforced. It's not just black or white, there is a huge grey area which needs to be examined closely.
I am in agreement with this. In most muslim countries (and other countries), Shariat is the not the official law. However, the aim of Islam is to enforce Shariat worldwide. This is my point. 7th Century laws/values are just not compatible with modern life, wouldn't you say?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Troberg View Post
As long as it don't conflict with British law, I see no problem with that. Organizations (religious or otherwise) are fully within their rights to assign rules for their members as long as these rules does not conflict with the legal system. For instance, snopes can decide that a certain user will be banned for breaking the rules of this site.

As far as I could see from that article, they have no intentions of competing with the British legal system for power, in fact, they are clearly stating that matters which belong in the ordinary legal system will be left to be handled there.
Yes, but what do they define as "matters that belong to the ordinary legal system"? As I have stated, Family law usually doesn't come under "secular law" according to Muslims; this is why you see polygamous (polygny?) marriages, very young girls getting married, etc.. within Muslim communities. Did you catch that C4 "undercover Mosque" program? The more "radical" Muslims were talking about the laws for shariat.

blah, my whole point is what is considered (truthfully) by those Muslims when they say "matters which belong to the ordinary legal system"? What matters is my point.

They consider the Quran the ultimate source of authority and Muhammad the "best example" to follow. Sorry to say this, but Muhammad was a liar, a (admitted) terrorist, as well as many other things... throw in the doctrine of Al-Taqqiya (the legal lie) and you cannot be sure that Muslims are being truthful to we 'infidels" (kufar).

Thanks for your input; I agree with many of your points though

-KC
Reply With Quote
  #58  
Old 09 August 2007, 09:49 PM
Jonny T
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
However, the aim of Islam is to enforce Shariat worldwide.

...

throw in the doctrine of Al-Taqqiya (the legal lie) and you cannot be sure that Muslims are being truthful to we 'infidels" (kufar).
Just to clarify here - are you arguing that all Muslims, or at least a significant majority, are working towards setting up Shariah law as the world's legal system?
Reply With Quote
  #59  
Old 09 August 2007, 10:16 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,451
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonny T View Post
Just to clarify here - are you arguing that all Muslims, or at least a significant majority, are working towards setting up Shariah law as the world's legal system?
The head of an organization over here called CAIR, the Council on American-Islamic Relations, has said that his goal as a Muslim American is to have Sharia implemented in the USA.
Reply With Quote
  #60  
Old 09 August 2007, 11:08 PM
King_Crimson King_Crimson is offline
 
Join Date: 13 March 2006
Location: Victoria, Australia
Posts: 82
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonny T View Post
Just to clarify here - are you arguing that all Muslims, or at least a significant majority, are working towards setting up Shariah law as the world's legal system?
Yes. Of course every religion wants to 'save' as many 'souls' as they can; just that Islam doesn't mind using terrorist/deceptive means to get such a goal as worldwide Islamisation. Of course they would be living under a Caliphate (Islami Government) that would be ruled bya Caliph (Islamic leader) and under Shariah law (Islamic law).

Of course I am definately not saying every single Muslim wants this; I am pointing out the goal of Islam as a religion and those who adhere closest to what it teaches.


@A Turtle Named Mack: Exactly!


Thanks

-KC
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.